RIGHT OR CHARITY?

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 861, 6 July 1910, Page 2

RIGHT OR CHARITY?

UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM. WAGES ON RELIEF WORKS. An interesting discussion took place at the Municipal Conference- yesterday on tho following remit from Christchurch :— That mo award made by an Arbitration Court shall apply to work- ■ meu employed by a lxirough council on works undertaken solely to relievo distress arising from unemployment. The mover (Mr. C. Allison, Mayor of Ohristchurch) said that when his council undertook to find work for tie unemployed last winter, they found that they were obliged to pay Bs. a day under the general labourers' award. Many of the men;had come in from outside districts, and tho money avaifcble waa not sufficient' to givo relief to all "at Bs. a day. and they got out of the difficulty by giving them intermittent work. It seemed unfair that thoy should bo tied down to relieve, only a few when many wanted relief. Mr. H. J. Otley, (Ohristchurch) seconded the motion, which was also supported by Mr. .6. Andrews (Tinwald); who thought it should apply to town . boards, and by Mr. H. Davis, Mayor or Ashburton. A Labour View. Tho Hon. 3. Barr, M.L.C., said tho motion was unnecessary because all that was really required could be effected by means of the undor-rttte worn- . crs' permit, which was provided for in almost oil awards. Tho general labourers' ' award was meant to give the worker a' living wago, but it did 7iot. (A voice; "Oh, bosh!") There was no bosh about it. A good labourer did Hot average more than 355. a week, owing to brokeii time. The work undertaken for unemployed relief was not unnecessary work, though it might be done sooner than would be the case if there were no unemployed.' Thoy should give tho men work, but not call it charity. It had been said at Christchurch that the remit would go through .'the conference without opposition. It would not; and lie hoped somebody else besides himself would have tho honesty of purpose and consideration • Voices: Oh! oh! The president: Mi*. Barr, you have no right to say that. Mr. Barr: Very well,'sir, I withdraw it. Mr. J. Wilson (Dunedin) suppoited the motion. Much of the relief work Was work that would never be done if it could not be done at low wages. Napier Experience. Mi. 3. V. Brown, M.P., opposed the motion. It looked like tho thin edge of the weJge to reduce wages. He thought workers generally did not get kjuougli forf their toil.' Bow they ■ lived and brought up families at Ds. a day, and broken time, he did not know. He could not do it himself on ton times the money. The Napier Borough Council paid 9s. 'a day (award rate) on works for the unemployed and got the pick of the'men." Mr. J. J. Niven (Napier), in opposing the motion, Said it was true that his council got the pick of the men for 95., but what about the poor fellows who could not earn tho money and were uot picked?' Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh (Wellington) agreed that at a poor man had a right to charitable aid, he' had a right to employment. He opposed the motion. ■ Mr. H.. Hay don' (Palraerston North) said the adoption of tho course favoured by Mr. Barr and other speakers would be in the end hurtful to tho workers. ( Mr. J. A. Nash (Mayor of Palmerston North) said councils should not attempt •" to reduce tho wages to which working men Were entitled. They'all had 'to live, and councils should rtso to the occasion' and pay the Usual wages. Mr. A, Ball (South Invercargili) said the remit was a very good one. In regard to the under-rate permit, the in-' competent worker Was usually quite unprepared to admit himself as such. They would like to givo as much Work at as good wages as possible, but they could not do more than they had money for. ■ "The Wolls of Philanthropy." Mr. J. J. Devine (Wellington), in, supporting the remit, said it would dryup the wells of philanthropy if it we fa known that full wages were to bo p«jd on unemployed r«Ui<jt works. . Mr: G-.-'B.- Mswkay, Mayor of Wan/panui, said he shared Mr. Barr's rieri-'" v Mr. "J. W. M'Ewan, Mayor of Petone. said the motion should bo dropped, aa it did not di/ierentiate between efficient and inefßciPnt workers. Tho question should bo ifeft to the councils. Mr. J. $. Arnold, M.P. (Moraington), strongly apposed tho motion. Mr. J. Carson (Wanganui) sa,id relief works were to tide men over 'a temporary /difficulty, but' if they gave inefficient work at full rates they would ■ want to stay on permanently.. Mr. W. A. Ott, Mayor of'lnvercar- i gili, opposed the remit. When local bodi/js provided work (which it was their duty to do), they should give .proper wages, and not seek to interfere v-jijeh any Arbitration Court award. Parliament's Attitude. , Tho president (Mr. T. M. Wilford, ,M.P.) said that if councils could pay lower than award wages for unemployed relief works, there " would bo differential rates of. wages and no regular wages throughout the country, according to the views of the different coun. oils. If the'object of tho State and the municipalities was to give a living wage, who could say that Bs. a day wa.s more than a living wage? He thought the question would have to be faced whether something beyond a living wage would not havo to bo insisted oil," say "10 per cent, more, m order that there might not bo a class receiving a bare living wage, and being thus unable to save,, with the conset quence that they would have to be supported by charitable aid. If boroughs had money for relief works, they ought to see that tho wage paid was a living wage. Ho thought thoy could not gain much by passing the motion, as the Legislature would take very littlo' notice of" it. The temper ' of Parliament was to uphold tho awards. On a division being taken, the motion was defeated by 39 to 24.